DOCSLIB.ORG

Locally Preferred Alternative Report (Draft Under TAC Review)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Locally Preferred Alternative Report (Draft Under TAC Review) Southwest LRT Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) Report DRAFT Under TAC Review PRELIMINARY FOR REVIEW ONLY September 10, 2009 Southwest Transitway Table of Contents 1.0 PURPOSE ............................................................................................................ 1 1.1 OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT .................................................................................... 1 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................. 1 1.2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 1.2.2 Study Area Description ............................................................................................. 1 1.3 PLANNING AND PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS FOR NEW STARTS PROJECTS ..................................................................................................... 5 1.3.1 Alternatives Analysis ................................................................................................ 6 1.3.2 Preliminary Engineering ........................................................................................... 7 1.3.3 Final Design ............................................................................................................. 7 1.4 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA)/MINNESOTA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (MEPA) .................................................................... 7 1.5 SOUTHWEST LRT PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS ........................................ 9 2.0 DEFINITION OF ALTERNATIVES ..................................................................... 11 2.1 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................... 11 2.2 ALTERNATIVES RECOMMENDED BY THE AA STUDY ........................................... 11 2.2.1 Alternative Development Process .......................................................................... 11 2.2.2 Evaluation of Preliminary Alternatives in the AA .................................................... 13 2.3 NEPA/MEPA SCOPING PROCESS ............................................................................ 14 2.3.1 Alternatives Proposed ............................................................................................ 15 2.3.2 Evaluation of Alternatives ....................................................................................... 15 2.4 REFINED AA CONCEPTUAL ENGINEERING PLANS ............................................... 18 2.4.1 LRT 1A ................................................................................................................... 18 2.4.2 LRT 3A ................................................................................................................... 18 2.4.3 LRT 3C-1 (Nicollet Mall) ......................................................................................... 19 3.0 DEFINITION OF ALTERNATIVES FOR THE DEIS ........................................... 21 3.1 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE .......................................................................................... 21 3.1.1 Highway/Roadway Network ................................................................................... 21 3.1.2 Transit Network ...................................................................................................... 22 3.2 BASELINE ALTERNATIVE .......................................................................................... 22 3.2.1 Enhanced Bus Alternative Description ................................................................... 23 3.3 BUILD ALTERNATIVE 1 (LRT 1A HCRRA – KENILWORTH) ..................................... 26 3.4 BUILD ALTERNATIVE 2 (LRT 3A) (OPUS/GOLDEN TRIANGLE – KENILWORTH) ............................................................................................................ 28 3.5 BUILD ALTERNATIVE 3 (LRT 3C-1 NICOLLET MALL) (OPUS/GOLDEN TRIANGLE – MIDTOWN/NICOLLET MALL) ............................................................... 30 3.6 BUILD ALTERNATIVE 4 (LRT 3C-2 11TH/12TH STREET) (OPUS/GOLDEN TRIANGLE – MIDTOWN/11TH/12TH STREET) ................................. 32 i Draft Locally Preferred Alternative Report September 2009 Under TAC Review 3.7 LRT SERVICE ASSUMPTIONS .................................................................................. 34 4.0 EVALUATION .................................................................................................... 35 4.1 METHODOLOGY, CRITERIA, AND MEASUREMENTS ............................................. 35 4.2 CRITERIA 1 – PLANNING COMPATIBILITY ............................................................... 35 4.2.1 Consistency with Adopted and Local and Regional Plans ..................................... 36 4.3 CRITERIA 2 – PERFORMANCE ................................................................................. 48 4.3.1 System Integration ................................................................................................. 48 4.3.2 Transit Trips (Ridership) ......................................................................................... 49 4.3.3 Transit Service ....................................................................................................... 51 4.3.4 Access for People, Housing, and Jobs ................................................................... 52 4.3.5 Capital Costs .......................................................................................................... 53 4.3.6 Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Costs ............................................................. 54 4.3.7 Cost Effectiveness Index (CEI) .............................................................................. 56 4.4 CRITERIA 3 – ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ................................................................ 57 4.4.1 Historic Properties .................................................................................................. 57 4.4.2 Natural Resources .................................................................................................. 60 4.4.3 Water Resources .................................................................................................... 61 4.4.4 Hazardous/Regulated Materials ............................................................................. 65 4.4.5 Section 4(f) Properties ............................................................................................ 67 4.4.6 Geological Evaluation ............................................................................................. 68 4.4.7 Noise and Vibration ................................................................................................ 69 4.5 CRITERIA 4 – OTHER FACTORS ............................................................................... 70 4.5.1 Right-of-Way (ROW) Acquisition ............................................................................ 71 4.5.2 Constructability ....................................................................................................... 72 4.5.3 Transportation Capacity ......................................................................................... 73 4.5.4 Permitting ............................................................................................................... 78 5.0 FINAL SCREENING EVALUATION RESULTS ................................................. 81 5.1 LPA EVALUATION RESULTS BY CRITERIA ............................................................. 82 5.1.1 Criteria 1: Planning Compatibility ........................................................................... 82 5.1.2 Criteria 2: Performance (System Integration, Transit Service, Access) ................. 83 5.1.3 Criteria 3: Environmental Issues ............................................................................ 83 5.1.4 Criteria 4: Other (Implementation Factors) ............................................................. 84 5.2 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................... 84 ii September 2009 Draft Locally Preferred Alternative Report Under TAC Review Southwest Transitway List of Tables Table 1 – Project Goals and Objectives ...................................................................................................... 12 Table 2 – Evaluation Results of the Southwest Transitway Alternatives Analysis (AA) ............................. 14 Table 3 – LRT Alternatives and Segments ................................................................................................. 16 Table 4 – LRT Stations by Segment ........................................................................................................... 16 Table 5 – Enhanced Bus Service Plan Operation Hours and Frequency (in minutes) ............................... 24 Table 6 - Planning Compatibility Evaluation Summary Matrix .................................................................... 47 Table 7 - Summary of Transit Integration by LRT Alternative ..................................................................... 49 Table 8 – Summary of Transit Mobility by LRT Alternative ......................................................................... 51 Table 9 – Summary of Transit Service by LRT Alternative ......................................................................... 52 Table 10 – Summary of Access for People, Housing and Jobs by Alternative, Years 2010 and 2030 ...... 53 Table
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Agenda Eden Prairie City Council Meeting Tuesday
    AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2015 7:00 PM, CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Council Members Brad Aho, Sherry Butcher Wickstrom, Kathy Nelson, and Ron Case CITY STAFF: City Manager Rick Getschow, Public Works Director Robert Ellis, City Planner Julie Klima, Community Development Director Janet Jeremiah, Parks and Recreation Director Jay Lotthammer, City Attorney Ric Rosow and Council Recorder Jan Curielli I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. COUNCIL FORUM INVITATION IV. PROCLAMATIONS / PRESENTATIONS A. EDEN PRAIRIE FTC ROBOTICS TEAM B. CERT-CSU PROGRAM C. PUTNAM OSTENSON LAND DONATION (Resolution) V. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS VI. MINUTES A. COUNCIL WORKSHOP HELD TUESDAY, JANUARY 20, 2015 B. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, JANUARY 20, 2015 VII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS VIII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. CLERK’S LICENSE LIST B. APPROVE PURCHASE OF 2015 78’ QUINT LADDER TRUCK FROM E- ONE C. AWARD CONTRACT FOR TENNIS AND BASKETBALL COURT RECONSTRUCTION AT FRANLO PARK TO MINNESOTA ROADWAYS COMPANY D. APPROVE SUBORDINATE FUNDING AGREEMENT 01 FOR TOWN CENTER NORTH-SOUTH ROAD WITH METROPOLITAN COUNCIL FOR THE SOUTHWEST LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT CITY COUNCIL AGENDA February 3, 2015 Page 2 E. APPROVE SUBORDINATE FUNDING AGREEMENT 02 FOR GOLDEN TRIANGLE TRAIL WITH METROPOLITAN COUNCIL FOR THE SOUTHWEST LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT F. APPROVE SUBORDINATE FUNDING AGREEMENT 03 FOR SOUTHWEST STATION TRAIL WITH METROPOLITAN COUNCIL FOR THE SOUTHWEST LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT G. APPROVE SUBORDINATE FUNDING AGREEMENT 04 FOR THE TECHNOLOGY DRIVE EXTENSION WITH METROPOLITAN COUNCIL FOR THE SOUTHWEST LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT H.
    [Show full text]
  • Passenger Rail Community Engagement
    Passenger Rail Community Engagement Existing Conditions and Policy Analysis August 10, 2017 Prepared for: Prepared by: Existing Conditions and Policy Analysis August 2017 | i Existing Conditions and Policy Analysis Table of Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Passenger Rail Community Engagement Report Overview ............................................................................................ 1 Purpose of the Existing Conditions and Policy Analysis.................................................................................................. 1 Existing Conditions and Peer Comparison......................................................................................................................... 1 Process and Implementation Timeline ............................................................................................................................. 6 Stakeholder Input ............................................................................................................................................................ 7 List of Tables Table 1: Passenger Rail Characteristics ............................................................................................................................. 1 Table 2: Household Density .............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Committee Report Transportation Committee
    Committee Report Business Item No. 2019-180 Transportation Committee For the Metropolitan Council meeting of August 28, 2019 Subject: Southwest Light Rail Transit (Green Line Extension) Systems Contract Award Proposed Action That the Metropolitan Council (Council) authorize the Regional Administrator to award and execute a contract 17P000 for Systems Construction for the Southwest LRT Project (SWLRT) to Aldridge Parsons, a Joint Venture, for $194,411,000.00, contingent upon receipt of Letter of No Prejudice (LONP) from the Federal Transit Administration and approval of the LONP work from Hennepin County. Summary of Committee Discussion/Questions SWLRT Project Director Jim Alexander presented this item. Atlas-Ingebretson asked how we ensure our contractors are meeting our communication standards. Alexander responded that late last week our contractor LMJV distributed fliers regarding upcoming construction they would be performing and unfortunately the fliers had incorrect information and there were issues with delivery. Alexander continued that going forward, the SWLRT Project Office will review all communications and discuss the delivery prior to issuing to the community. Sterner stated that he’s heard about disruption to bicyclists because of construction. Alexander stated that yes, there is disruption due to the construction work and the detours are required to get in/out of downtown Minneapolis, but that staff is continually working with local jurisdictions and gathering comments from trail users to refine detours as needed. Cummings asked if there is a consequence for not meeting DBE goals. Alexander said that the contractor is required to meet the DBE goal and the Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO) continuously reviews the contractor’s progress to determine consistency with the DBE commitment.
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Memorandum No. 3 Definition of Alternatives
    Southwest Transitway Alternatives Analysis Technical Memorandum No. 3 Definition of Alternatives Prepared for Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority Prepared by: PB Americas, Inc. (PB) January 2007 Table of Contents 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1 2. Background and Assumptions ..................................................................................... 1 3. Methodology.................................................................................................................2 4. Transit Technology Screening ..................................................................................... 4 5. Definition of Initial Alternatives................................................................................... 11 6 Refined Alternatives .................................................................................................. 36 Appendix A. Transit Technology Screening ..................................................................A-1 Appendix B. Southwest Transitway Corridor Inventory of Studies................................B-1 Appendix C. Agency/Stakeholder Meetings to Refine Initial Alternatives .................... C-1 Appendix D. Definition of the Refined Alternatives ....................................................... D-1 Appendix E. References ...............................................................................................E-1 Appendix F. BRT Typical Sections................................................................................F-1
    [Show full text]
  • SWLRT Civil Construction Update
    Construction Update: December 4 - 17, 2020 Web: swlrt.org Twitter: @SouthwestLRT Construction Hotline: 612-373-3933 Upcoming Highway 62 Closure A full closure of Highway 62 is being planned for Thursday, December 10 until Monday, December 14, 2020 between Shady Oak Road and Hwy 212. This closure will allow the Southwest LRT project to advance LRT tunnel construction under the roadway. More details will be forthcoming once finalized. See detour information here. Trail Reopening The North Cedar Lake Trail has reopened under Highway 394 to Van White Boulevard in Minneapolis. Trail users can now connect to Dunwoody Boulevard and use dedicated bike facilities that have recently been established to travel directly into downtown Minneapolis and connect to Hennepin Avenue and other locations. See trail detour information here. Weekly Construction Photo: Beltline Boulevard Trail Bridge in St. Louis Park Crews can be seen working on the Beltline Boulevard pedestrian bridge in St. Louis Park, installing the metal stair towers as an alternative option for accessing the pedestrian bridge. 1 | Page Eden Prairie Eden Prairie Construction: Map 1 of 2 SouthWest Station Area In this area crews are building a new park-and-ride ramp adjacent to the existing ramp and constructing the joint bus and LRT station. Pile driving activities will continue at the SouthWest Station through the winter into next year. Crews have made significant progress with piling, having completed those needed for the buildings’ footprint. Crews are also conducting concrete work and installing supports for excavation in the area. A stationary tower crane is assisting crews with the work.
    [Show full text]
  • Corenet: the Future of the Daily Commute
    CoreNet: The Future of the Daily Commute Mark Fuhrmann, Will Roach and Dan Duffy September 12, 2017 1 Today’s Topics • Mark Fuhrmann ▪ Metro Transit Overview ▪ Light Rail Transit Projects • Will Roach ▪ Business Case For Transit Investments • Dan Duffy ▪ Corridor Development & ROI 2 Metro Transit Overview 3 Metro Transit: Building a Regional Transit System for the 21st Century 4 2016 Metro Transit Ridership • 82.6M total rides • 266K average weekday rides • Light rail transit: ▪ 12.7M Green Line rides, 2.5% increase from 2015 ▪ 10.2M Blue Line rides 5 Ridership Insights: 2016 On Board Survey • Approximately 50% of transit trips are made by people age 18 – 34 years old • Race profile: ▪ White: 56.3% ▪ Black/African American: 26.4% ▪ Asian: 8.1% ▪ Latino/Hispanic: 6.4% ▪ American Indian/Alaska Native: 3.5% ▪ Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander: 0.6% • Gender: 48.1 female, 51.9 male; percentages can vary by route 6 Ridership Insights: 2016 On Board Survey • Income: ▪ Less than $15,000: 18.1% ▪ $15,000 - $24,999: 14.4% ▪ $25,000 - $34,999: 13.9% ▪ $35,000 - $59,999: 20.1% ▪ $60,000 - $99,999: 17.4% ▪ $100,000 - $149,999: 10.8% ▪ $150,000 - $199,999: 3.3% ▪ $200,000+: 1.9% 7 Multimodal Connections: Bike/Ped Facilities • Majority of transit users walk to their stations/stops • Transit users often split their commute between biking and transit • Bike lockers available at many park-n-ride lots, rail stations • Blue Line opened in 2004 with bike accommodations in the LRVs & near station platforms 8 METRO System: All-Day, Frequent Service • Light Rail Transit .
    [Show full text]
  • Highway Transitway Corridor Study: Final Report
    Highway Transitway Corridor Study Final Report Prepared for: Metropolitan Council May 2014 SRF No. 7994 Highway Transitway Corridor Study: Final Report Prepared for: Metropolitan Council SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Table of Contents Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 Why were these corridors selected for the study? ......................................................................................... 2 Who was involved in the study? ...................................................................................................................... 2 What is Highway BRT? ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Stations ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Runningways ........................................................................................................................... 5 Vehicles .................................................................................................................................... 6 What were the key points that the study found? ........................................................................................... 6 What was studied for each corridor?..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Meeting Presentation (PDF)
    METRO Green Line Extension Eden Prairie Construction Town Hall James Mockovciak, Community Outreach Coordinator March 1, 2021 1 November 2018 Project Groundbreaking! 2 Today’s Topics • Project Overview • 2020 Construction Recap • 2021 Construction Overview • Communications and Outreach Update 3 Project Overview 4 METRO Green Line Extension • 14.5 miles • 16 stations • Will provide single seat trips to downtown Minneapolis, U of M and St. Paul • Connections to the Airport and Mall of America via the Blue Line 5 2020 Construction Recap 6 Southwest Station Area 7 Southwest Station Looking east: pile supports for bus loop Looking west: construction of station waiting area and track foundation 8 SouthWest Station 9 SouthWest Station 10 SouthWest Station 11 Prairie Center Drive Bridge Area .· y. v - ... IJi!Ss TYPICAL SECTION TYPICAL SECTION AT LAND BRIDGE AT BRIDGE JUNE 2017 12 Prairie Center Drive Bridge 13 Prairie Center Drive Bridge: Pier Artwork 14 Eden Prairie Town Center Station Area -: - -''='·:;rL ---- TYPICAL SECTION TYPICAL SECTIONAT GRADE AT BRIDGE JUNE 2017 3 15 Eden Prairie Town Center Station 16 Eden Prairie Town Center Station 17 Eden Prairie Town Center Station 18 Town Center Place 19 Flying Cloud Drive 20 Valley View Bridge Area 1 I jY·, TYPICAL SECTION AT TYPICAL SECTION - - -"tJr '.-- J 4 _ ,:r:- - -- • 21 LRT Bridge at Valley View Road 22 Nine Mile Creek Bridge 23 Golden Triangle Station Area L I 24 Golden Triangle Station 25 Golden Triangle Station 26 TH212/Shady Oak Road/City West Area • 27 LRT Bridge at TH212/Shady Oak Road Bridge piers: looking southeast towards Shop HQ and at right looking northwest towards Shady Oak/Highway 212 28 City West Station 29 Hwy 62 Tunnel Construction 30 2021 Construction Overview 31 Eden Prairie: 2021 Construction Highlights • SouthWest Station area piling and station/parking ramp construction • The following bridges have deck work and/or finishing details (piling has concluded): .
    [Show full text]
  • Highway 169 North Analysis
    Highway 169 North Analysis Highway 169 Mobility Study Version 2.0 Minnesota Department of Transportation Prepared by: September 2016 SRF No. 8989 Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1 Concept Development ............................................................................................... 3 Selecting Stations for Analysis ............................................................................................................ 3 Capital Cost Estimates ......................................................................................................................... 5 Operating Plan ...................................................................................................................................... 5 Ridership ................................................................................................................................................ 6 Technical Results ........................................................................................................ 8 Corridor Description ........................................................................................................................... 8 Operating Characteristics .................................................................................................................... 9 Capital Costs ........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • City Council Workshop Meeting Council Chambers January 15, 2020 | 6:30 P.M. Workshop Agenda
    City Council Workshop Meeting Council Chambers January 15, 2020 | 6:30 p.m. 6:00 p.m. Dinner – City Hall Lunch Room Workshop Agenda 6:30 p.m. 1. Planning Commission / City Council Joint Meeting 20-14 • Role of Planning Commission and City Council • METRO Gold Line Station Area Master Plan • South of Dale Road Master Plan and Phase 2 Update 7:50 p.m. 2. Break 8:00 p.m. 3. Metropolitan Council Water Efficiency Grant Program, Consideration 20-15 and Discussion 8:30 p.m. 4. Review of Council Directive CD-COUNCIL-2.5 City Council and Advisory Commission Roles and Guidelines 8:50 p.m. 5. Administrator Comments and Updates1 8:55 p.m. 6. Mayor and City Council Comments and Commission Liaison Updates1 9:00 p.m. 7. Adjournment 1 Items under comments and updates are intended to be informational or of brief inquiry. More substantial discussion of matters under comments and updates should be scheduled for a future agenda. The City of Woodbury is subject to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by public entities. The City is committed to full implementation of the Act to our services, programs, and activities. Information regarding the provision of the Americans with Disabilities Act is available from the City Administrator's office at (651) 714-3523. Auxiliary aids for disabled persons are available upon request at least 72 hours in advance of an event. Please call the ADA Coordinator, Clinton P. Gridley, at (651) 714-3523 (TDD (651) 714-3568)) to make arrangements.
    [Show full text]
  • City West Station City of Eden Prairie
    CITY WEST STATION CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE SOUTHWEST CORRIDOR INVESTMENT FRAMEWORK southwest corridor investment framework Transitional Station Area Action Plan Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. www.swlrtcommunityworks.org Norths tar Line een Line O Gr METR METRO Blue Line Proposed Bot neau Line TARGET FIELD STATION MINNEAPOLIS ROYALSTON VAN WHITE rridor) t Co PENN es w 21ST STREET South ABOUT THIS CHAPTER: WEST LAKE ( ension ST. LOUIS PARK The Transitional Station Area BELT LINE Action Plans are the product of a WOODDALE n Line Ext ee Hennepin County led effort to help O Gr LOUISIANA communities along the Southwest Introduction METR HOPKINS LRT corridor prepare for SW LRT’s BLAKE opening day in 2018 and beyond. DOWNTOWN HOPKINS An individualized plan has been MINNETONKA SHADY OAK CORRIDOR: created for each of the 17 stations OPUS EDEN PRAIRIE CITYCITY WESTWEST in the Southwest corridor, each GOLDEN TRIANGLE plan comprising a chapter in the larger Southwest Corridor EDEN PRAIRIE TOWN CENTER SOUTHWEST Investment Framework. The station TION WITHIN THE area action plans suggest ways MITCHELL A to build on local assets, enhance mobility, identify infrastructure needs, and capitalize on promising CITY WEST ST opportunities for development and INTRODUCTION A corporate campus providing The access City Westfor visitors station and is a employeesmajor redevelopmentemployment to station north near each station. the United Health Group offices and other nearby businesses and an important trail connectionYMENT between the Opus and GoldenPlan Components:Triangle station areas. EMPLO INTRODUCTION 14-2 of the Town Center (see Place Types discussion beginning on p. 1-19). The station is located near the United Health AGroup brief (UHG) overview office campus, of theon the station southern side of Highway 62.
    [Show full text]
  • CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN City of Eden Prairie 2017-2026 Capital Improvement Plan Table of Contents
    2017–2026 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN City of Eden Prairie 2017-2026 Capital Improvement Plan Table of Contents CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN & REPORTS Capital Improvement Plan Introduction ................................................................................................ 8 Department Summary Report ................................................................................................................ 10 Funding Source Summary Report .......................................................................................................... 11 Projects by Department Report .............................................................................................................. 12 Projects by Source Report ....................................................................................................................... 19 Projects & Funding Sources by Department ........................................................................................ 31 PROJECT DETAILS BY DEPARTMENT Community Development 13801 Entry Monument/Signs ........................................................................................................... 45 13803 Redevelopment to Affordable ................................................................................................ 46 14801 Collaborative/Co-location Work Space ................................................................................ 47 14804 TOD Affordable ......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]